Negligence Per Se in North Carolina

Typically, to prove a claim in negligence, a plaintiff must prove that (1) the defendant had a duty to exercise reasonable care, (2) the defendant failed to meet that duty, (3) the plaintiff suffered injuries, and (4) the defendant’s failure to exercise reasonable care was both the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. Negligence per se, however, assumes the failure to exercise reasonable care based on the defendant’s violation of a law which was intended to protect the public. If a defendant is negligent per se, then the plaintiff must prove only the issue of proximate cause.

Most traffic laws are designed to protect the public, and therefore, a violation of them would constitute negligence per se. The North Carolina Supreme Court has explained that

It is the generally accepted view that the violation of a statute enacted for the safety and protection of the public constitutes negligence per se, i. e., negligence as a matter of law. The statute prescribes the standard, and the standard fixed by the statute is absolute. The common law rule of ordinary care does not apply–proof of the breach of the statute is proof of negligence. The violator is liable if injury or damage results, irrespective of how careful or prudent he has been in other respects. No person is at liberty to adopt other methods and precautions which in his opinion are equally or more efficacious to avoid injury. But causal connection between the violation and the injury or damage sustained must be shown; that is to say, proximate cause must be established. In short, where a statute or municipal ordinance imposes upon any person a specific duty for the protection or benefit of others, if he neglects to perform that duty, he is liable to those for whose protection or benefit it was imposed for any injuries or damage of the character which the statute or ordinance was designed to prevent, and which was proximately produced by such neglect, provided the injured party is free from contributory negligence.

Carr v. Murrows Transfer Inc. (1964)

A common example of this type of negligence per se is speeding, which violates the law limiting a car’s speed. In that case, a person who speeds is negligent per se, and if another person is injured, then the speeding motorist is liable as long as the speeding proximately caused the injuries.

However, some traffic laws specifically state that the violation thereof is not negligence per se. The North Carolina Supreme Court stated in Carr that in that case, “the common law rule of ordinary care applies, and a violation is only evidence to be considered with other facts and circumstances in determining whether the violator used due care.” The Court went on to explain that a defendant has a duty whether a statute exempts it from negligence per se or not. If the statute does not exempt it from negligence per se, “the duty is to obey the statute.” If the statute does exempt it from negligence per se, “the duty is due care under the circumstances.” In both cases, “other facts and circumstances are to be considered on the question of proximate cause.” However, in the case of a statute which exempts it from negligence per se, “other facts and circumstances are to be considered also on the question of negligence.” The Court concluded that “[i]n practical effect the real distinction is not so great as seems apparent from the definitions.”

An example of this type of statutory violation is found in the 2003 court of appeals case, Sharp v. CSX Transportation, Inc. In Sharp, a firefighter was driving the firetruck back to the station after responding to a call. On his way back, he came to a train crossing, when a train approached, causing the crossing gate to lower. Just after crossing the road, the train stopped, but the gate remained lowered. The trains in the area had a widely known practice of stopping “for extended periods of time in close proximity to crossing gates thereby causing the gates to remain lowered.” Because the firefighter was alone in the firetruck, he was not allowed to put the truck in reverse. Fire station policy also required him to return promptly to the fire station after a call. The firefighter believed that the gate was lowered only because of the train that had stopped. After waiting for a little while to see if the train would move, the firefighter proceeded to go around the gate, at which point an Amtrak train approached and hit the fire truck, killing the firefighter.

North Carolina law prohibits a motorist from driving around a train crossing gate. G.S. 20-142.1 states that

(b) No person shall drive any vehicle through, around, or under any crossing gate or barrier at a railroad crossing while the gate or barrier is closed or is being opened or closed, nor shall any pedestrian pass through, around, over, or under any crossing gate or barrier at a railroad crossing while the gate or barrier is closed or is being opened or closed.

….

(d) Any person who violates any provisions of this section shall be guilty of an infraction and punished in accordance with G.S. 20-176. Violation of this section shall not constitute negligence per se.

The defendant argued that the firefighter was contributorily negligent by violating this statute and therefore barred from recovering damages. Because the statute exempted it from negligence per se, the court was required to consider whether the firefighter exercised “due care under the circumstances.” Under the allegations in that case, the court determined that the defendant’s motion to dismiss should not have been granted because the firefighter’s “contributory negligence is not so clear that ‘no other conclusion can be reasonably drawn therefrom.’”

There are other North Carolina statutes which not only provide that a violation thereof does not constitute negligence per se, but also specify that a violation may not even be used as evidence of negligence. For example, G.S. 20-135.2A requires a person to wear a seatbelt, but subsection (d) states that “[e]vidence of failure to wear a seat belt shall not be admissible in any criminal or civil trial, action, or proceeding except in an action based on a violation of this section or as justification for the stop of a vehicle or detention of a vehicle operator and passengers.” Similarly, G.S. 20-137.1 requires the use of child restraint systems but subsection (d) states that not only does a violation of the statute “not constitute negligence per se or contributory negligence per se” but also “[t]he violation shall not be evidence of negligence or contributory negligence.”

If you have been injured in a car accident, visit www.rflaw.net for legal help.

I can not say enough about this law firm. They were very professional but had a way of making you feel like you were their only case. They worked so hard for us, kept us informed at all times and we are very pleased with the outcome. Cory was so helpful and straight to the point. Isaac is so professional, polite and works harder than anyone I know. He was always on top of everything and his knowledge on everything about our case was incredible! I highly recommend them and their services!

Kevin Hughes

00:14 31 May 18

I highly recommend this Firm. Cory and Issac were always extremely professional and frequently went above and beyond the call of duty. They worked diligently, always responded quickly and answered my unending questions with grace and patience. I wouldn't hesitate to reach out to them again if I needed legal advice/counsel.

anim reyna

15:01 29 Mar 18

Highly recommended!! I worked with both Corey and Mathew and they are both EXCELLENT attorneys! Delma and Issac the paralegals that work in the office are beyond great! I would recommend this law office to any of my family members, friends and even strangers! I brought two cases to them(one was on going for almost two years) and they worked it all out for me and I was very satisfied with the results and would return back to them

Marissa Jackson

15:27 16 Mar 18

I am grateful to have worked with Cory Rosensteel and his team, I personally worked with Isaac Barker. A great team that really helped me understand and answer any questions I had along he way. Very happy with the way the case settled thanks to them. Will definitely be recommending them to anyone looking for great team.

Adero Burbridge

14:55 29 Apr 18

Rosensteel Fleishman was recommended to us to help with an auto accident. Our attorney Matt Fleishman and his paralegal were very professional and patient when aiding my elderly parents with their situation. Throughout the process, they were always available and kept us abreast of what was happening with the case. I would and have recommended them to friends and family.

Kimberly Morrison

10:45 19 Jun 18

Corey Fleishman and his staff are fantastic. Calls, emails and any questions you have are returned promptly. Every aspect of my case was explained thoroughly to me. I highly recommend this law firm to anyone who has been in an accident. Luis was always patient and informative. Great job on mine and my children's settlement. I HOPE to never have to go thru this process again, but if I do....Rosensteel and Fleishman will get the first call.. Great job everyone!

David Glassman

02:06 17 Jul 18

Excellent communication and customer service. Cory was very easy to talk to each step of the way. Isaac was amazing to work with. He answered every question I had along the way as well. I would highly recommend this firm.

zohaib rizvi

17:00 23 Jul 18

I cannot recommend this law firm highly enough. I am very much satisfied with the way the case settled. Paralegal, Luis, had always kept me updated on my case and at every stage of my case, Mathew thoroughly explained the options and let me take the informed decision; and answered all my questions througout the case as well. Very happy with the settlement, Thanks to Matthew and team. Highly recommended law firm.

Amanda Krawiec

21:10 21 Aug 18

HIGHLY RECOMMEND! My husband was in a car totaling crash where he sustained neck & back injuries as well as a concussion that caused months of issues. The person who hit him did not have insurance. I can’t explain the hell we went through before we found Matt Fleishman and Issac Barker. It was a tricky situation and without their legal help and expertise we would have had even more headache(then he was already experiencing). They knew exactly what steps to take and handled all his dr bills as well as recommended great drs. Issac personally called just to check on us, some of those calls I spent crying to him as a wife seeing her husband suffer. Thankfully my husband recovered and we were able to get our case settled to our liking. If you want results, expert legal advice & kind people handling your troubles I would go here!!! Thank you so much for all the time you put into handling every piece of this horrible experience so we didn’t have to! I can firmly say they went above and beyond!

Shaquille Clary

19:43 09 Sep 18

I had an an amazing experience with the Fleishman group. Tiffany and Luis were excellent and very helpful with my experience. They upheld the highest professionalism at all times and made it a top priority that my case be handled expeditiously. My attorney Corey Rosensteel is an seasoned professional and will take care of your every need. I will use the same team in the future and I recommend them to anyone in need of attorney services. Thanks guys!!!

Nicole Loor

19:35 26 Sep 18

Highly recommend. Very professional and am very happy with everything they did for me!

K. L. Suess

00:28 09 Nov 18

HIGHLY RECOMMEND... Worked with Attorney Matthew Fleishman and Isaac Barker - both are professional, helpful and knowledgeable. Definitely feel they look out for the best interest of their client(s).